Assessment of EoI: 291

Organization: Development Support Association (NANA) representing ASIREBA and IPLC’s of the Zambezi Delta



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 291 in Coastal East Africa - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: The proposed area are the wetlands of the Zambezi delta in the districts of Chinde, Inhassunge and Quelimane. The delta area is where most of the 400,000 ha of mangroves in the Mozambique are concentrated. The area provides nursery grounds for hundreds of species of fish, is a global destination of rare and migratory birds, home to Mozambique’s largest population of Cape Buffalo as well and hundreds of elephants and thousands of ungulates, breeding ground for at least three species of marine turtles, and nursery grounds for humpback whales and containing intact pockets of Swahili Coastal Forest. Mangroves provide coastal protection and protection against cyclones and floods, with mangrove sediments sequestering hundreds of times more carbon than even tropical rainforest. Mangroves also protect seagrass beds from sedimentation. The area is not a KBA, has a moderate Species Range-Size Rarity and is not Intact forest Landscape.

Evidence B:NA


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: The area scores high for Irrecoverable Carbon.

Evidence B:The selected area is part of the irrecoverable carbon area, as most of it are under mangrove covered area


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: The indigenous territory, as well as the populations that inhabit them, continued with customary / traditional governance as they are peoples that have their own cultural habits and customs; as the area is remote, with much of it only accessible by water, the reach of modern government is limited here. The ethnic groups are Chuabo and Lomuè, with matrilineal family systems where women are the heads of households (HH) but political parties have pushed to re-establish a male dominated hierarchical system, damaging traditional structures. However, these IPLCs currently maintain this customary form of territorial governance although they have been exposed to various challenges and different socio-economic circumstances and paradigms.

Evidence B:No…despite having some rural communities, most part of the area is under MADAL management, a private entity.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: NA/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: The EoI mainly describes the livelihood importance of the area; IPLCs tried to re-establish their traditional crops, yet maintaining a link to the commercial world through coconut company Madal. With the collapse of Madal and the other coconut companies, as a result of the plant epidemics, IPLCs have continued to survive by (over) exploitation of natural and marine resources, coupled with coconut production and agriculture on a much smaller scale. The EoI is limited in describing the cultural significance, other than that the local population has been living in the area for thousands of years, is traditionally a matrilineal society and are a mix of both Muslim and Catholic, with a liberal mixture of local tradition. Prayer is as likely to be on the beach, or at the foot of a baobab tree, as in a formal place of worship.

Evidence B:The text does not justify the cultural significance of the area for the local communities. It describes the techniques that can promote sustainable management of fishing


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: Several actions contribute to the destruction of mangroves, including cutting the mangroves to use wood for the construction of boats, fences and various household items, use of mangroves as wood fuel for domestic purposes, deforestation for the construction of infrastructure for housing and industry, extraction of salt by cutting down mangroves to make salt pans, slash and burn agriculture practice, over-exploitation of marine resources caused by crop epidemics, climate change impacts, floods, drought, cyclones, sea level rise, soil erosion, wetlands degradation and deforestation. The area has medim to very high cumulative development pressures, some forest loss between 2000-2019, twolarge neighbouring land deals. Mozambique scores 62 on the 2019 Global Index Map and Flower Plot. According to Global Witness, at least 1 land defender has been killed in Mozambique between 2016-2018.

Evidence B:There is a clear listing of the threats associated with the area


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Mozambique’s legal framework allows for the recognition of IPLC ownership of lands (DUATs) and control of forests (community forest concessions) (RRI 2015); While recognition of customary rights is established in law, full recognition requires a specific process of demarcation. ~19.1 Mha of land have been recognized by the government as owned by IPLCs and with another 1 MHa of forest land recognized as under IPLC control. In total, this represents approximately 25% of the country’s total land area. (RRI 2015). According to Landmark about half of customarily-administered lands have yet to be recognized. The Agrarian Policy gives priority to the development of agricultural activities to achieve food security in the country based on the sustainable use of natural resources; The Land Policy that aims to consolidate the population’s rights over land and other natural resources while promoting investment and the sustainable and equitable use of these resources; The Environmental Policy that aims to ensure that the environment and natural resources maintain their functional and productive capacity for current and future generations; The Law and Regulations for the Conservation of Biodiversity; The STRATEGIC PLAN (SP) OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF CONSERVATION AREAS - ANAC (2015 - 2024) which has the general objective of guiding national and international efforts to fully realize the potential existing in the country’s conservation areas through sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.

Evidence B:The proposal list the most important legal framework associated that enable the community based conservation, despite weak description of their direct relation


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: CBD reports mention that some programmes on community management of natural resources are being implemented. Grupo MADAL (coconut company) received funding (750,000.00 USD) from the Ministry of Economy and Finance - Catalytic Fund for Innovation and Demonstration (FCID) to set up an ingrowers’ irrigation scheme on part of its land and to set up a farm school for IPLCs that use their land.

Evidence B:NA


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: IPLC in the Zambezi delta have worked with the other project partners on a number of conservation initiatives.

Evidence B:There is a list of implemented project, but not evidence the projects led by local communities. The list are based on capacity building and research projects


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Complementary projects and in-kind contributions mentioned are mainly initiatives of MADAL Company and not IPLC-led, but are related to project objectives.

Evidence B:Potential only one project can be complementar to the activities. Other listed initiatives are not necessarily connected to conservation



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 22/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 10/30

Average Total Score: 16/30



Performance of EoI 291 in Coastal East Africa - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: Although submitted by NANA, an IPLC organization, the project seems to be driven by MADAL forestry and agricultural company that has a 100+ year relationship with the IPLCs (especially the answer to Q 11 suggests this). They share common interest of better environmental management as well as livelihood / economic company interests. The project includes participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources and involvement of local leaders who seem to adhere the project in a handwritten letter in Portuguese, which seem to be clear IPCL-led components, but the proposal is not very clear on strengthening land (use) rights of IPLCs.

Evidence B:There is very weak alignment. This projects sounds more like a Corporate Social Responsibility project, rather then and empowerment of local communities project


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: Activities described on 3 main results; restored landscape; reviving traditional cultural sustainable resource management habits and catalyze economic alternatives. This is a comprehensive set of activities but more clarity needed on strengthening land (use) rights of IPLCs.

Evidence B:The three results presented are not connected, and does not reflect the focus on local community led in conservation. Some activities under the results, may have a great impact if could be placed under the same result


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The objectives and activities have a clear relationship with the identified threats and have potential to increase IPLC capacity and livelihoods as well as strengthen IPLC structures and culture.

Evidence B:There are not direct link. However the restoration activities might directly contribute to reduce the habitat loss as result of some of the threats


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: The EoI expresses it needs the maximum contribution of GEF of US$ 2M and on top a contribution of Grupo MADAL of US$ 350,000,-. The activities listed and the scale proposed make it plausible that the project can be implemented with this budget.

Evidence B:NA


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The EoI seeks maximum contribution of GEF, but includes co-financing opportunities by MADAL, see previous question and the projects and in-kind funding listed are almost all MADAL-related, except one project funded by USAID.

Evidence B:There is list of some initiatives implemented, but no clear evidence of co-financing


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: The estimated total area under improved management is 100,030 Ha

Evidence B:NA


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The project will monitor community well-being using the Simple Poverty Scorecard for Mozambique that uses a number of proxy indicators to determine if the family is over or under the Mozambique poverty line of USD 1.99 per person per day. This seems to be limited to livelihood and not include cultural indicators.

Evidence B:No reface of indicators. The proposal pushes to refer to the poverty score card tool for Mozambique, which has general indicators, and not specific to the project


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: The EoI explains that all actions proposed in this document are built on the historical relationship between MADAL and the indigenous communities with which it has had 100+ years of cooperation. Sustainability is built around this relationship, which uses the private sector for the benefit of both parties. This seems to be a limited interpretation of sustainability as it seems to keep the communities dependent on one company.

Evidence B:Not at all.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: The EoI explains to which national priorities the project contributes; (i) reducing the direct and indirect causes of biodiversity degradation and loss, (ii) improving the state of biodiversity, safeguarding the diversity of ecosystems, habitats , of species and genes; (iii) improving the sharing of benefits from biodiversity and the services provided by ecosystems for all IPLCs and (iv) improving implementation through participatory and inclusive planning, knowledge management and training, but does not explicitly relate this to National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of Mozambique.

Evidence B:There are no clear references of the strategies, plans and other relevant national priorities


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The areas are traditionally matrilineal, though subsequent colonization and independence has overlaid this with patrilineal structures which have gone a long way to disenfranchising women. Women’s empowerment will focus on girls today and women mothers of tomorrow. NANA and MAJOL have many good experiences of using REFLECT in special protection of girls (protection of indigenous girls against cultural habits such as the example of premature marriages and initiation rites). This seems to be a limited gender approach to only focus on girls.

Evidence B:Despite mentioning the experience of the proposed on the REFLECT approach, the proposal does not mainstream gender approach for the project


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: The project includes capacity building of indigenous leadership in environmental awareness and reviving traditional cultural aspects as well as aims for participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources, but lack clarity on community land (use) rights and the whole project depends very much on involvement of one company.

Evidence B:No. It is more of agriculture based alternatives associated with restoration of mangrove areas…no evidence of innovation that could be scaled



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 25/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 7/40

Average Total Score: 16/40



Performance of EoI 291 in Coastal East Africa - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: Although submitted by an IPLC organization there is a strong involvement of one company with which the IPLCs have a 100+ year relationship. The project includes several aspects of building IPLC capacity.

Evidence B:The organization fits more under a CSO that works directly with local communities.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: The organization coordinates at least one network of local PICL organizations, community-based organizations or other civil society groups active in one or more regions of the country. The organization has one or more projects led by PICL but these are run from their base in an urban center. Both staff and organization have demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work.

Evidence B:The led proposed has show some collaborative works in supporting the establishment of Community Based Organization for sustainable management of natural resources, but these efforts are not reflected in the activities and concept of the proposal


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 1.5/5

Evidence A: The 2 parners listed are a Developmental consultancy with years of experience as a partner and pro-bono advisor to NANA and Grupo Madal, SARL, a Mozambican plantation agriculture company with 100+ years of experience working with IPCL contract farming and offtaking, recently under new management and trading as ‘Novo Madal.’ No IPLC listed explicitly as partners, but the activities include participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources, which suggests the IPLC communities as implementing partners.

Evidence B:NA


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Staff and partner organizations has relevant skills and experience and past projects demonstrate a track record of capacities necssary for the project.

Evidence B:There is a lot of consultancy experience and not related to the interaction with local communities.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: The average annual budget for NANA is 775.000,00 USD. The largest annual budget for any project that the organization is currently implementing is in a range of US$100.000 to US$1.000.000 per year. The organization’s funding comes, from at least, 10 sources. No source proves more than 20%. The organization regularly produces reports, internal and external audits and financial statements that put on place to management and administration as a way of accountability to its partners and stakeholders in a timely manner. External audits are carried out annually, recommendations are implemented and an annual financial report is published and made available to the public. Two projects listed over $200,000,

Evidence B:NA


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Answered yes but no explanation to the extent.

Evidence B:NA



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 19/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 10/30

Average Total Score: 14.5/30



Performance of EoI 291 in Coastal East Africa - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)